Well, the Boeing board approved the newest 737 family, the "737 MAX" (aka "737 New Engine" or "737NE"). Why the mixed message concerning a name for the newest version of the plane? That is a head scratcher. It strikes me as a bit bipolar, and symbolic of the corporate dithering that has plagued Boeing concerning their next single-aisle airliner. No word if the (troubled) Max the Bionic Dog is the namesake of the latest 737.

It's official, Boeing has launched
the 737-7, -8 and -9 under the banner of the 737 New Engine Family, with a
planned 2017 entry into service. Along with the board approval, which came
yesterday, Boeing has announced 496 commitments from five customers. Only
American Airlines has announced its intention
to purchase 100 of the CFM LEAP-1B-powered jets.

If the engines get any bigger (in diameter), they're going to have to lengthen the gear...the inlets are already "squashed" on the bottom for ground (FOD) clearance.

Wonder if they're planning on union or non-union work force?

Ameshawki [Member]

8/31/2011 5:53:38 AM EST

Originally Posted By Mryenko:787 development apparently ate the 737 replacement.

Probably a lot of truth to that. This is clearly the low risk option.

Star_Scream [Team Member]

8/31/2011 7:07:47 AM EST

With how much of the workload being borne by the 737 this makes sense.

radkoch [Member]

8/31/2011 8:34:02 AM EST

I am sure Boeing is getting a lot of pressure from the major 737 operators to start supporting the fleet better or Airbus or Bombardier will be getting some business. The next gen fleet is still somewhat supoorted but Boeing does seem way to to concerned on the new fleet and not providing much interest or support for the current products.

I also know some of he newest 737's that are being delivered have an updated -7 motor.

CFII [Industry Partner]

8/31/2011 8:38:55 AM EST

Didnt they already have something called the 757?

Screechjet1 [Team Member]

8/31/2011 9:38:38 AM EST

Originally Posted By CFII:Didnt they already have something called the 757?

Like the aircraft it replaced, the 727, the 757 couldn't be adequately replaced at an economic consideration level.

"But Albaugh said that design changes will be minimal to the airplane, confined largely to those associated directly with the new engine. There are minor aerodynamic improvements and there will be some additional fly-by-wire features. There will not be a new cockpit, he said, because customers want commonality with the 737NG cockpit."

New engines and an LED tailight with a cockpit from the 60's.

And I have no illusions about who the customer is that "wants commonality with the 737NG cockpit."

"But Albaugh said that design changes will be minimal to the airplane, confined largely to those associated directly with the new engine. There are minor aerodynamic improvements and there will be some additional fly-by-wire features. There will not be a new cockpit, he said, because customers want commonality with the 737NG cockpit."

New engines and an LED tailight with a cockpit from the 60's.

And I have no illusions about who the customer is that "wants commonality with the 737NG cockpit."

And I have no illusions about who the customer is that "wants commonality with the 737NG cockpit."

What problems do you have with the NG cockpit?

Coincidentally, the major obstacle the 737 MAX/NE faces with respect to re-engining is its short landing gear, which (along with its dumbed-down cockpit) was insisted upon by Southwest when Boeing came out with the 737NG (-600, -700, -800, -900) in the late-90s. SWA wanted to maintain cockpit commonality with 737 Classic (-100 to -500)cockpits (see the overhead panels and the glass cockpit emulated steam gauges). Further, SWA insisted that the 737 remain low to the ground to ease ground handling, this was key for the airline as it keeps turnarounds tight. Hence, the 737NG is only slightly higher above the ground than its 737 Classic predecessors.

Now that Boeing has decided to refresh the 737, after dragging its feet on a narrow-body replacement for at least two years (in large part due to capital and engineering resources being consumed by the delayed 787 and 747-8), those aspects of the 737NG tailored for Southwest in the '90s that made the 737NG a best-seller are the ones (particularly the short landing gear) that are limiting the improvements that would enable it to better compete against the A320 NEO family.

And I have no illusions about who the customer is that "wants commonality with the 737NG cockpit."

What problems do you have with the NG cockpit?

Coincidentally, the major obstacle the 737 MAX/NE faces with respect to re-engining is its short landing gear, which (along with its dumbed-down cockpit) was insisted upon by Southwest when Boeing came out with the 737NG (-600, -700, -800, -900) in the late-90s. SWA wanted to maintain cockpit commonality with 737 Classic (-100 to -500)cockpits (see the overhead panels and the glass cockpit emulated steam gauges). Further, SWA insisted that the 737 remain low to the ground to ease ground handling, this was key for the airline as it keeps turnarounds tight. Hence, the 737NG is only slightly higher above the ground than its 737 Classic predecessors.

Now that Boeing has decided to refresh the 737, after dragging its feet on a narrow-body replacement for at least two years (in large part due to capital and engineering resources being consumed by the delayed 787 and 747-8), those aspects of the 737NG tailored for Southwest in the '90s that made the 737NG a best-seller are the ones (particularly the short landing gear) that are limiting the improvements that would enable it to better compete against the A320 NEO family.

Boeing did the same thing in the 1930s when it build aircraft for Boeing Speed Lines/United specs, and if anyone else found them useful, well great.

And I have no illusions about who the customer is that "wants commonality with the 737NG cockpit."

What problems do you have with the NG cockpit?

Coincidentally, the major obstacle the 737 MAX/NE faces with respect to re-engining is its short landing gear, which (along with its dumbed-down cockpit) was insisted upon by Southwest when Boeing came out with the 737NG (-600, -700, -800, -900) in the late-90s. SWA wanted to maintain cockpit commonality with 737 Classic (-100 to -500)cockpits (see the overhead panels and the glass cockpit emulated steam gauges). Further, SWA insisted that the 737 remain low to the ground to ease ground handling, this was key for the airline as it keeps turnarounds tight. Hence, the 737NG is only slightly higher above the ground than its 737 Classic predecessors.

Now that Boeing has decided to refresh the 737, after dragging its feet on a narrow-body replacement for at least two years (in large part due to capital and engineering resources being consumed by the delayed 787 and 747-8), those aspects of the 737NG tailored for Southwest in the '90s that made the 737NG a best-seller are the ones (particularly the short landing gear) that are limiting the improvements that would enable it to better compete against the A320 NEO family.

Boeing did the same thing in the 1930s when it build aircraft for Boeing Speed Lines/United specs, and if anyone else found them useful, well great.

Or DeHavilland designing for BOAC. Or H-S for BEA. Or Lockheed for American. Or McD for American. Or...

And I have no illusions about who the customer is that "wants commonality with the 737NG cockpit."

What problems do you have with the NG cockpit?

Coincidentally, the major obstacle the 737 MAX/NE faces with respect to re-engining is its short landing gear, which (along with its dumbed-down cockpit) was insisted upon by Southwest when Boeing came out with the 737NG (-600, -700, -800, -900) in the late-90s. SWA wanted to maintain cockpit commonality with 737 Classic (-100 to -500)cockpits (see the overhead panels and the glass cockpit emulated steam gauges). Further, SWA insisted that the 737 remain low to the ground to ease ground handling, this was key for the airline as it keeps turnarounds tight. Hence, the 737NG is only slightly higher above the ground than its 737 Classic predecessors.

Now that Boeing has decided to refresh the 737, after dragging its feet on a narrow-body replacement for at least two years (in large part due to capital and engineering resources being consumed by the delayed 787 and 747-8), those aspects of the 737NG tailored for Southwest in the '90s that made the 737NG a best-seller are the ones (particularly the short landing gear) that are limiting the improvements that would enable it to better compete against the A320 NEO family.

And I have no illusions about who the customer is that "wants commonality with the 737NG cockpit."

What problems do you have with the NG cockpit?

Coincidentally, the major obstacle the 737 MAX/NE faces with respect to re-engining is its short landing gear, which (along with its dumbed-down cockpit) was insisted upon by Southwest when Boeing came out with the 737NG (-600, -700, -800, -900) in the late-90s. SWA wanted to maintain cockpit commonality with 737 Classic (-100 to -500)cockpits (see the overhead panels and the glass cockpit emulated steam gauges). Further, SWA insisted that the 737 remain low to the ground to ease ground handling, this was key for the airline as it keeps turnarounds tight. Hence, the 737NG is only slightly higher above the ground than its 737 Classic predecessors.

Now that Boeing has decided to refresh the 737, after dragging its feet on a narrow-body replacement for at least two years (in large part due to capital and engineering resources being consumed by the delayed 787 and 747-8), those aspects of the 737NG tailored for Southwest in the '90s that made the 737NG a best-seller are the ones (particularly the short landing gear) that are limiting the improvements that would enable it to better compete against the A320 NEO family.

What I'm hearing is "it's Southwest's fault." I couldn't agree more.

Mryenko [Team Member]

9/5/2011 3:35:07 PM EST

While I don't disagree that Southwest had input on the NG design, I do think that Boeing settled on the NG gear length thinking that the NG series would be the last re-engining of the 737, and that a new airframe would replace it. A longer gear would have cost fuel during every single flight, by every single 737NG produced. That's a lot of godamned money for the airlines. They look at every tenth of a percentage point, nowadays.

SUPRISE: 787 cost you a lot more than you thought it would. Now you get to half-assed compete with Airbus again.

Screechjet1 [Team Member]

9/6/2011 4:42:09 AM EST

Though looking at the pylons, it looks like they jammed the engine into the wing as far as it would go.

And I have no illusions about who the customer is that "wants commonality with the 737NG cockpit."

What problems do you have with the NG cockpit?

Coincidentally, the major obstacle the 737 MAX/NE faces with respect to re-engining is its short landing gear, which (along with its dumbed-down cockpit) was insisted upon by Southwest when Boeing came out with the 737NG (-600, -700, -800, -900) in the late-90s. SWA wanted to maintain cockpit commonality with 737 Classic (-100 to -500)cockpits (see the overhead panels and the glass cockpit emulated steam gauges). Further, SWA insisted that the 737 remain low to the ground to ease ground handling, this was key for the airline as it keeps turnarounds tight. Hence, the 737NG is only slightly higher above the ground than its 737 Classic predecessors.

Now that Boeing has decided to refresh the 737, after dragging its feet on a narrow-body replacement for at least two years (in large part due to capital and engineering resources being consumed by the delayed 787 and 747-8), those aspects of the 737NG tailored for Southwest in the '90s that made the 737NG a best-seller are the ones (particularly the short landing gear) that are limiting the improvements that would enable it to better compete against the A320 NEO family.

And I have no illusions about who the customer is that "wants commonality with the 737NG cockpit."

What problems do you have with the NG cockpit?

Coincidentally, the major obstacle the 737 MAX/NE faces with respect to re-engining is its short landing gear, which (along with its dumbed-down cockpit) was insisted upon by Southwest when Boeing came out with the 737NG (-600, -700, -800, -900) in the late-90s. SWA wanted to maintain cockpit commonality with 737 Classic (-100 to -500)cockpits (see the overhead panels and the glass cockpit emulated steam gauges). Further, SWA insisted that the 737 remain low to the ground to ease ground handling, this was key for the airline as it keeps turnarounds tight. Hence, the 737NG is only slightly higher above the ground than its 737 Classic predecessors.

Now that Boeing has decided to refresh the 737, after dragging its feet on a narrow-body replacement for at least two years (in large part due to capital and engineering resources being consumed by the delayed 787 and 747-8), those aspects of the 737NG tailored for Southwest in the '90s that made the 737NG a best-seller are the ones (particularly the short landing gear) that are limiting the improvements that would enable it to better compete against the A320 NEO family.

What I'm hearing is "it's Southwest's fault." I couldn't agree more.

Try to go outside more

I will, thanks. You tell John Dennison hello for me.

BlammO [Team Member]

9/7/2011 2:35:55 PM EST

She said, "10 to 12 percent better fuel efficiency per seat." So with about 10 or so passengers, it's 100% more fuel efficient and beyond that, it produces more fuel than it uses? I like that!

And I have no illusions about who the customer is that "wants commonality with the 737NG cockpit."

What problems do you have with the NG cockpit?

Coincidentally, the major obstacle the 737 MAX/NE faces with respect to re-engining is its short landing gear, which (along with its dumbed-down cockpit) was insisted upon by Southwest when Boeing came out with the 737NG (-600, -700, -800, -900) in the late-90s. SWA wanted to maintain cockpit commonality with 737 Classic (-100 to -500)cockpits (see the overhead panels and the glass cockpit emulated steam gauges). Further, SWA insisted that the 737 remain low to the ground to ease ground handling, this was key for the airline as it keeps turnarounds tight. Hence, the 737NG is only slightly higher above the ground than its 737 Classic predecessors.

Now that Boeing has decided to refresh the 737, after dragging its feet on a narrow-body replacement for at least two years (in large part due to capital and engineering resources being consumed by the delayed 787 and 747-8), those aspects of the 737NG tailored for Southwest in the '90s that made the 737NG a best-seller are the ones (particularly the short landing gear) that are limiting the improvements that would enable it to better compete against the A320 NEO family.

What I'm hearing is "it's Southwest's fault." I couldn't agree more.

Try to go outside more

I will, thanks. You tell John Dennison hello for me.

Will do.

TLWrench [Team Member]

11/3/2011 12:29:07 PM EST

Well, looks like the 737 MAX will get the 68-inch diameter fan after all, albeit with an extension to the nose gear.

Boeing Commercial Airplanes CEO Jim Albaugh has announced that the company will fit a 68in CFM Leap-1B engine on its 737 MAX family. In addition, the design will add fly-by-wire "one control surface" and the larger fan will prompt a 6-8in extension of the nose landing gear.

*Rest of story linked at title*

FlyingDog_14 [Member]

11/4/2011 6:36:21 AM EST

How many times can you update one aircraft?

Mryenko [Team Member]

11/4/2011 6:49:25 AM EST

Originally Posted By FlyingDog_14:How many times can you update one aircraft?

As many times as your customer will continue to buy the upgraded product.

Screechjet1 [Team Member]

11/4/2011 6:54:43 AM EST

Originally Posted By Mryenko:

Originally Posted By FlyingDog_14:How many times can you update one aircraft?

As many times as your customer will continue to buy the upgraded product.

Or as many times as the economic value of a clean-sheet-of-paper design is outweighed by build a little, test a little, learn a lot.